1. As is stated above, on 5 April 2022 the applicant pleaded guilty to 'brought into, or whilst in West Australia received, possessed, concealed, disposed of or dealt with any money or property' for which he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of four years.
2. The circumstances of the offending are set out in the sentencing remarks of his Honour Judge Egan of the District Court of Western Australia. The transcript reflects that the offending was premeditated, and that the applicant received communications from members of an organised crime group by way of encrypted communication. His Honour found the following:

...on 8 September 2022, [the co-accused], you received instructions to collect $1,715,445 cash with details of the pick-up location. You collected the money and then delivered it to an address in Banksia Grove. The cash was collected and then taken to an address in Bennett Springs, where Mr Collins, together with another person, loaded it onto a wooden pallet, wrapped it in black plastic on put it on a Nissan Navara. Mr Collins was later stopped by West Australian Police whilst driving that Nissan Navara, and following a search of the barrel, police located the cash.

3. The applicant, before sentencing, agreed to the following Amended Statement of Material Facts to be tendered before the Court:

The offenders 'COLLINS' and '[T]' and the co-accused '[RZ]' (also charged) are members of an organised criminal syndicate, involved in the transportation of cash between WA and the eastern states of Australia. > > The transported cash in this matter is the proceeds of a criminal enterprise. The syndicate utilises Dedicated Encrypted Communication Devices 'DECDs' to communicate. DECDs are typically modified mobile phones and are the preferred method of communication for organised crime networks. > > This allows members to communicate during the facilitation of unlawful activity (engaging either directly or indirectly in a transaction to conduct their dealings) with minimised risk or interception by law enforcement. During the early hours of Thursday 8 September 2022 [T] received instructions to collect $1,715,445.00 cash accompanied with details of a pick-up location for him to attend. > > [T] collected the money from the designated place and took it to the carpark situated at Revo Fitness in Banksia Grove. The cash was later collected and taken to [RZ's] home address of .... COLLINS drove to the residential address in his Nissan Navara vehicle (registered ......). COLLINS and [RZ] secured a blue barrel onto a wooden pallet with black plastic wrap, before loading it onto the vehicle's (Nissan Navara) tray (rear compartment). > > On that same day, at 8.30am COLLINS was stopped by police whilst driving the Nissan Navara vehicle on Kelvin Road Maddington. He was the sole occupant inside. Officers searched the barrel locating numerous bundles of cash. Police seized money. On the same day, police executed a search warrant at xxx > > Police located [T]in the house and arrested him as a suspect. During the search police seized various items of interest consistent with the distribution of cash (bill counter machine, packaging, vacuum sealed bags, phones). Officers observed encrypted messages on his mobile phone indicative of his participation in the alleged (property laundering) offence. > > [T]declared to possess a large sum of cash on the premises. Police located $15,050.00 cash in his bedroom. The cash is reasonably suspected to be the proceeds of a criminal enterprise. Police conducted a search at xxx with [RZ] present. During the search officers located three barrels, rope, and black plastic wrapping. The items were all of the similar make as the components used to conceal the unlawfully obtained cash on the Nissan Navara. > > Both offenders and the co-accused were arrested on suspicion of money laundering. COLLINS was questioned regarding the matter during the vehicle stop. He declined to be interviewed and was taken to Curtin House police station. [T] made full admissions during the search to receiving the cash as payment for transporting the proceeds of the criminal enterprise (being $1,715,445.00).

4. In addition, the applicant has a prior history of offending, in particular one count of common aggravated assault occasioning bodily harm and one count of common assault dating back to 2009 and one count of theft dating back to 2011.
5. The offence of common assault occasioning bodily harm is particularly serious as it involved the applicant assaulting a woman. The details of the offending are contained at Hearing Book (HB) p.469:

On Sunday 7th June 2009 the accused was in the lower carpark of the Botanica Bar and Bistro on the corner of Scarborough Beach Road and Leige Street in Innaloo. > > In between 10:00pm and 10:10pm that night the accused has become involved in a verbal altercation with the victim's xxx as they walked through the car park. xxx and xxx have tried to avoid a physical altercation by walking away towards the BP service station on Scarborough Beach Road. The accused has thrown a glass bottle at which has struck her in the back of the head. The accused has ran over to the xxx. He has pushed her to the ground and in doing so has grabbed a hold of the accuseds t-shirt causing it to rip off. A further struggle has taken place and in an attempt to protect herself, has used her shoe to strike the accused on the head. > > While this was taking place a co-offender (also charged) was punching and hitting xxx to the upper body and head area. The accused has left xxx and ran over to xxx. The accused in company with the co-offender, have continued the assault on by using his fists to punch and hit him.

6. In addition, the applicant was convicted two offences of 'receive property theft' and 'furnish false information / statement to licensee' in 2011 in relation to a stolen mobile phone that the applicant attempted to sell to a pawnbroker. These offences were dealt with by way of fines of $400 and $800 each.
7. The applicant also has driving offences and given the potentially very serious consequences to other road users, the respondent submitted that the driving offences are very serious.[1] The applicant's driving offending has included speeding offences with the latest offence occurring in June and August 2022.
8. These offences have been taken into account.

1. On 25 August 2023, the applicant's Visa was cancelled under s501(3A) of the Act. This was on the basis that the applicant has a substantial criminal record within the meaning of s501(6)(a) and s501(7)(c) of the Act and was serving a sentence of imprisonment, on a full-time basis, in a custodial institution for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.
2. The applicant requested revocation under s501CA(4) of the Act and on 2 October 2025, a delegate made a decision under s501CA of the Act not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the visa. The applicant was notified of that decision by an email sent to his representative on 6 October 2025.
3. On 6 October 2025 the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review.
4. The hearing of the application for review was listed on 11 and 12 December 2025.
5. The 84th day in this matter is 29 December 2025, however the decision was published on 22 December 2025.

1. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review a decision to cancel a visa under s 501(3A), where the application for review is lodged within nine days after the decision is notified: s 500(6B). In this case, the application for review of that decision was made on 2 October 2025 and the applicant was notified on 6 October 2025. The application for review was filed on 6 October 2025, within nine days after the decision was notified within the statutory time limit provided by s 500(6B) of the Act. The Tribunal therefore has jurisdiction to hear and determine the application. Pursuant to s 500(6L) of the Act, the Tribunal is required to make a decision within 84 days of the day after the applicant was notified of the decision or it will be taken to be affirmed.

1. In deciding in relation to the application, the Tribunal has considered the following:

(a) Applicant's bundle of documents > > (b) 40 statements of support and character references > > (c) Marriage Certificate > > (d) Childrens' Birth Certificates > > (e) Letter from applicant's wife to applicant's previous employer (dated 23.05.23) > > (f) Letter from, applicants' previous employer to Applicant (dated 12.06.23) > > (g) The oral evidence given by the applicant and his wife; and > > (h) The closing oral submissions made on behalf of the parties.

2. The applicant's witness who gave evidence at the hearing was:
   • The applicants' wife.
3. Relevant parts of the oral evidence and submissions are considered below.

1. Section 501 of the Act deals with decisions to refuse or cancel a visa on character grounds. Relevantly to this case s501(3A) of the Act provides that the Minister may cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if the Minister reasonably suspects that the person does not pass the character test and the person does not satisfy the Minister that the person passes the character test.
2. If the Tribunal is not satisfied that a person passes the character test, it must then consider whether the discretion to cancel should be exercised. In exercising the discretion, the Tribunal must have regard to the considerations set out in Direction No. 110, visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (the Direction) which commenced on 21 June 2024.
3. Direction 110 contains guidance for decision-makers and specifies principles that govern the task of deciding whether to cancel a visa under s 501(2).
4. The Minister may give written directions under s 499(1) of the Act to a person or body having functions or powers under the Act if the directions are about the performance of those functions or the exercise of those powers. Section 499(2A) requires the Tribunal to comply with any directions made under s 499(1).
5. In this case, "Direction No 110 - Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA" (the Direction) applies.
6. For the purposes of deciding whether to revoke the cancellation of a visa, 5.2 of the Direction sets out several principles that must inform the decision-maker's application of the primary and other considerations set out in Part 2 of the Direction, where those considerations are relevant to the decision.
7. These principles are:

(1) Australia has a sovereign right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern are allowed to enter and/or remain in Australia. Being able to come to or remain in Australia is a privilege Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law-abiding, will respect important institutions, such as Australia's law enforcement framework, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.

(2) The safety of the Australian Community is the highest priority of the Australian Government.

(3) Non-citizens who engage or have engaged in criminal or other serious conduct should expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or to forfeit the privilege of staying in, Australia.

(4) The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they engaged in conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, that raises serious character concerns. This expectation of the Australian community applies regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measureable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.

(5) Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, or by other non-citizens who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community only for a short period of time.

(6) With respect to decisions to refuse, cancel, and revoke cancellation of a visa, Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age.

(7) Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. In some circumstances, the nature of the non-citizen's conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation.

(8) The inherent nature of certain conduct such as family violence is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation, even if the information available at the time of consideration suggests that the noncitizen does not pose a measureable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.

1. Informed by these principles, the Tribunal must take into account the relevant primary and other considerations set out in the Direction.
2. Section 7.1 of the Direction states that appropriate weight should be given to information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources. Section 7.2 of the Direction states that the primary consideration of the protection of the Australian community is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations. It also states that primary considerations should generally be given greater weight over 'other' considerations.
3. The primary considerations are set out in section 8 of the Direction:

(1) Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;

(2) Whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence;

(3) The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia;

(4) The best interests of minor children in Australia; and

1. A non-exclusive list of other considerations is set out in section 9 of the Direction. These are:

1. FHHM v Minister for Immigration[2] considered [8.4] of Direction 79, which also stated that primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than other considerations. O'Callaghan and Colvin JJ, Derrington J agreeing, referred to remarks made by Colvin J in Suleiman v Minister for Immigration,[3] stating at [34] that 'particular circumstances may pertain that may justify greater weight being to one or more of the other considerations than one or more of the primary considerations'.

1. In relation to the character test, the issue is whether the applicant passes the character test pursuant to s 501(6)(a) of the Act.
2. In circumstances where the applicant was convicted of two offences of 'brought into, or whilst in West Australia received, possessed, concealed, disposed of or dealt with any money or property' and sentenced to a term of four years' imprisonment, the applicant meets the criteria of ss 501(6)(a) and 501(7)(c) of the Act.
3. The applicant concedes that he does not pass the character test and the Tribunal makes a finding accordingly.
4. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the discretion to cancel the visa should be exercised, taking into account relevant considerations in the Direction.

Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct - 8.1**

1. In accordance with 8.1(1) of the Direction, in considering the protection of the Australian community, the Tribunal has had regard to the principle that the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity. The Tribunal has also considered that entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, will respect important institutions, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
2. As required by 8.1(2) of the Direction, the Tribunal has considered:

(a) the nature and seriousness of the applicant's conduct; and > > (b) the risk to the Australian community, should the applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.

Nature and seriousness of the applicant's conduct - 8.1.1

1. The Tribunal has considered the nature and seriousness of the applicant's offending set out above, including the index offending, the common aggravated assault occasioning bodily harm and common assault dating back to 2009 and one count of theft dating back to 2011.
2. The offence of common assault occasioning bodily harm is particularly serious as it involved the applicant assaulting a woman.
3. In relation to the seriousness of the applicant's offending generally, relevant factors under 8.1.1(1) that I must consider are:
   • The sentence imposed on the applicant - 8.1.1(1)(c);
   • The impact of the applicant's offending on any victims of offending and their family - 8.1.1(1)(d);
   • The frequency of the applicant's offending and/or whether there is any trend of increased seriousness - 8.1.1(1)(e);
   • The cumulative effect of repeated offending - 8.1.1(1)(f); and
   • Whether the applicant has re-offended since being formally warned about the consequences of further offending in terms of the applicant's migration status - 8.1.1(1)(g).
4. In relation to the sentence imposed on the applicant for the index offending, the applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of four years, with a non-parole period of two years. The Tribunal concludes that the sentences are relevant to the seriousness of the applicant's offending. The maximum penalty that could have been imposed for the offence of money laundering is 20 years, and the court imposed a four year sentence. This, in the view of the Tribunal indicates that the court considered the offending to be of a serious nature (see sentencing remarks) but not very serious so as to impose a longer period of imprisonment. His Honour Judge Egan stated in sentencing:

"I consider that each of the offending is at the mid to high end of the seriousness for offences of this nature. And, of course, each of your counsel has conceded appropriately that the offences are serious."

5. In relation to the impact of the applicant's offending on victims, it is universally acknowledged that the offence of money laundering is not a victimless crime, and it is the lifeblood of organised crime in Australia. The sum of money being transported was substantial and the sentencing judge noted

"money laundering is vital for the functioning of organised crime syndicates and the money launderer is an important cog in the wheel of organised crime, indeed it has been recognised by the courts that laundering the proceeds of a criminal activity is the lifeblood of organised crime and organisations obtain money in a form which does not alert law enforcement authorities."

6. It was found by the sentencing Judge that the applicant was motivated by personal greed and had a "'commercial motive for engaging in the offending'".
7. In sentencing the applicant, the Court noted that the applicant's co-accused had a greater involvement and responsibility and therefore his level of culpability was greater[4] and the offending "was not an aberration ... on [T] part"[5]. His Honour Judge Egan further noted that "you, Mr [T], had a greater level of involvement in the criminal enterprise compared to Mr Collins.".... "But Mr Collins I accept you had no prior involvement in the criminal enterprise."[6]
8. It should also be noted that the Court took into account the following mitigating factors:
   • The applicant's guilty plea at the earliest opportunity which afforded him the maximum discount of 25%;
   • The genuine remorse for his actions, indicated by his early plea, and as reflected in his multiple witness statements that spoke to the applicant's remorse;
   • The view expressed in the pre-sentence report that the applicant has a low risk of reoffending.[7]
9. Based on the statement of agreed facts of the index offending and the sentencing remarks by his Honour Judge Egan, the Tribunal finds the offending serious, but not very serious.
10. In relation to the offences of common assault and assault occasioning bodily harm, these offences are very serious as they include violent offending against a female. The Tribunal has considered the applicant's oral evidence that he had been hit in the back of the head, which resulted in blood running into his eyes and that only when he wiped his eyes, did he realise his victim was a female. The Tribunal is not persuaded that the applicant did not, at any stage during the protracted encounter, realise that the victim was female. The offence falls squarely within paragraphs 8.1.1(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Direction and the Tribunal considers the offending very serious but acknowledges that the offending occurred 15 years ago and that the applicant has not demonstrated any further propensity for violent offending in any way. There is no suggestion that the female victim was in a relationship with the applicant or was known to him and there is no evidence of family violence of any form.
11. In relation to the frequency of offending, the Tribunal considers that, given the 16 year hiatus between the assaults and the index offending, it cannot be said that the applicant has frequently offended. However in relation to the cumulative effect of the offending the Tribunal does consider that the index offending demonstrates a trend of increasing seriousness of the non-citizen's offending (8.1.1.(e)).
12. It must also be taken into account that the applicant has provided false and misleading information to the Department and 8.1.1(1)(i) of the Direction is also relevant. He last entered Australia in January 2014 and failed to declare his criminal convictions on two incoming passenger cards on 26 June 2010 and 10 January 2014. The applicant gave oral evidence that as he did not go to prison, he did not understand he had been convicted of a crime. This is not persuasive evidence and the Tribunal affords the evidence little weight and it does not exculpate the applicant.
13. Overall while I accept that the applicant's offences of common assault occasioning bodily harm and money laundering are serious, the violent offending appeared to be an isolated event and occurred more than 16 years ago. The index offence facilitates and enables criminal organisations in Australia but the applicant's involvement as a driver appeared to be a one off offence and Judge Egan found he was not integrally involved in the organisation. The cumulative effect of the applicant's offending, ranging from 2009 to 2024 leads me to conclude that the applicant's offending should be regarded as serious.

1. In considering the need to protect the Australian community from harm, the Tribunal has had regard to the Government's view that the Australian community's tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. In this regard, the Tribunal has had particular regard to 8.1.2(1), which states that '[s]ome conduct and the harm that would be caused, if it were to be repeated, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable'.
2. It is not in dispute that the applicant has engaged in serious conduct, that if repeated, would pose a risk to the Australian community.
3. During oral evidence the applicant continued to show remorse and stated that he felt very sorry for his actions and the effect it had on his family. He realised in gaol that his offending was not a victimless crime and states that he is aware of the impact the crime had on the community. He stated that he now realises that he was not alone and that he was able to seek help and speak to professionals, friends and family if he felt overwhelmed by financial pressures. He stated that the financial pressures have been eliminated because he received a substantial payout from his former employer which allowed the family to pay off all personal loans. The debt, being the remaining mortgage, is now consolidated and the monthly payments are met by his wife who has obtained employment. Relatives have moved into the matrimonial home, paying rent and further assisting with mortgage payments and living expenses. The applicant, mostly through the evidence of his wife, demonstrated that the financial affairs of the family are now managed realistically and no threats of foreclosure have been received from the bank.
4. In respect of the applicant's risk of re-offending, the Tribunal has considered the applicant's evidence, and the Treatment Assessment Report contained in the Hearing Book (HB).[8]
5. In relation to this issue, the Tribunal has considered:
   • Applicant's personal circumstances form;[9]
   • Applicant's bundle of evidence;
   • Applicant's written SOFIC;
   • Applicant's statements dated 5 October 2023, 15 October 2023, 19 November 2023;
   • Statements from the applicant's wife dated 19 October 2023, 17 February 2025, 14 November 2025, 3 December 2025;
   • Letter of support from the applicant's employer;
   • Employment and qualifications information; and
   • The oral evidence given by the applicant and his wife at the hearing.
6. The applicant gave evidence in a frank and forthright manner about his offending. The Tribunal considers that the applicant was not minimising his behaviour and showed considerable insight into his offending, the financial triggers that gave rise to the offending and his willingness to seek help from family and if necessary professionals in the event he should be subject to similar stressors.
7. In respect of the assault convictions, it is the respondent's submission that there are incidents of violence and violence against women that are relevant to the risk assessment and should be taken into account. It was submitted that the common assault against a women, albeit 16 years ago should be considered as a very serious offence. The applicant gave evidence that he was intoxicated, momentarily blinded and did not realise he was assaulting a female. As set out above the Tribunal did not consider this evidence compelling. However, as the applicant has not demonstrated a propensity for violence either before or after the offending, it cannot be concluded that the applicant is at risk of violently offending again, and has not been assessed to pose a risk to the community in the relevant assessments by prison authorities.[10] After cross-examination of the applicant, and considering the police event report tendered by the respondent,[11] the Tribunal concludes that the risk of violent offending is low.
8. In respect of the index offending, considering the sentencing remarks of Judge Egan the Tribunal also accepts that the risk of reoffending, even if financial pressures should re-emerge, is "minimal"to "low"[12]. The applicants' risk was reported as being minimal by the author of the pre-sentence report and summarised by the sentencing judge (noting the pre-sentence report is not before the Tribunal). When asked, the respondent conceded that on the evidence before the Tribunal, it is open to the Tribunal to conclude that the risk of re-offending overall is "low".

Conclusion in relation to protection of the Australian community

1. The Tribunal has had regard to paragraph 8.1.2(1), which states that '[s]ome conduct and the harm that would be caused, if it were to be repeated, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable'. It is the Minister's contention that the applicant's offending if repeated is so serious as to be unacceptable. The Tribunal does not consider that this is such a case. It is not in dispute that the violent offending perpetrated by the applicant is very serious, albeit 16 years ago. In respect of the index offending, there is no doubt that should the applicant again engage in money laundering for organised crime, the resulting harm to the Australian community would be serious but not so serious as to pose a risk that if repeated is unacceptable as is considered by the Direction. It is noted that the Western Australian Parole Board did not consider that the release of the applicant posed and unacceptable risk to the community, because he was assessed by Corrective Services as a low risk of reoffending and did not require intensive programmatic intervention. The Board noted that his visa to remain In Australia had been cancelled but found:

Nevertheless, If you are subsequently successful In the revocation of the > > cancellation of your visa, the Board determines that your release In Western > > Australia does not pose an unacceptable risk to the safety of the community.[13]

2. In relation to the risk of the applicant re-offending, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant feels genuine remorse and has a level of insight as to the effects that this offending has on the community.[14] He was assessed as "low" risk of general offending and released into the community:

Mr Collins scored one and is assessed as having a low risk of general reoffending. In accordance with the current process, he will not be further assessed for criminogenic interventions[15]. > > Mr Collins has been screened as a low risk of reoffending and has not been recommended for criminogenic programs at the time. Given that Mr Collins has not been afforded an opportunity at parole previously, his prison conduct, confirmed release address with good family support and confirmed employment, his release to parole appears to be viable at this time[16].

3. The applicant submits, and the Tribunal accepts, that his continued relationship with his wife and children and the prospect of employment are such that the applicant is highly motivated to be a supportive husband, father and employee. He is highly motivated to obtain employment as a track machine operator and has some confidence that, despite his criminal conviction, his particular skill is in demand and he may regain employment as a FIFO worker.. There is some evidence to suggest that this is achievable. Whilst he was incarcerated and because of his considerable payout, his wife has organised the couple's finances in such a way that currently, even without the applicant's wages, the family can sustain itself and meet mortgage repayments. The applicant, upon release, does not encounter the same financial stressors that led to his offending. The Tribunal accepts that he has gained insight into his criminal behaviour and accepts that he requires assistance to learn financial literacy.
4. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant is remorseful and that he has family support, including from his wife, and two children and has the valued support of a large extended family as well as his employer[17] who is willing to employ him as a labourer should the applicant be released into the community. His family and his friends are committed to supporting him and the Tribunal is satisfied there are extensive protective measures in place with a view to ensuring that he does not re-offend, even in the event of a reoccurrence of financial pressures which precipitated his offending.
5. Based on the evidence given by the applicant, the documents tendered by the Western Australian Parole board, the sentencing remarks, and oral and written evidence by the applicant, his wife and his employer, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant's commitment not to re-offend is genuine and not responsive to the applicant's current visa status. Overall, the Tribunal considers the risk of the applicant re-offending is low, based on the evidence given by the applicant orally and in writing, the pre-sentence reports, the sentencing remarks and the assessment of the Western Australian Parole Board.
6. In assessing the likelihood of the applicant engaging in further violent other serious conduct, 8.1.2(2) of the Direction requires the Tribunal to take into account not only information and evidence on the risk of the applicant reoffending, but also evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision. In doing so, the Tribunal has given weight to the fact that the applicant has not spent some in the community since the index offending in 2022. The applicant was released on bail on 8 September 2022 and was sentenced on 16 May 2023. He did not offend whilst on bail. The Tribunal has considered all of the evidence and concludes that the applicant is remorseful and that his wife has obtained full time employment and arranged the financial affairs of the family in such a way that the mortgage repayments are met, and no other personal loans remain that may lead to financial pressures and possible recidivist behaviour. In relation to violence, the Tribunal has taken into account that the applicant showed no signs of violent behaviour prior to the assaults which occurred in 2009 and was in the community for 14 years without offending. Upon release, he is keen to obtain employment.
7. The Tribunal therefore considers that the applicant has demonstrated that he is capable of rehabilitation, rehabilitation in this instance referring to his determination not to be associated with organised crime. He gave persuasive evidence that financial pressures, no matter how grave, would not lead him to reoffend as he now recognises that his friends and family provide significant protective factors that would prevent him from re-offending. He has also demonstrated that his family have re-arranged their financial affairs so as to alleviate financial pressures.
8. The Tribunal notes the respondent's legal submissions (SOFIC) accept that the applicant has a low risk of reoffending. The respondent accepts that the applicant is at a low risk of reoffending, but states, given the involvement of organised crime, any risk to the Australian community is unacceptable. The Tribunal has taken the respondent's submissions into account, but notes the pre-sentence report, the sentencing remarks and the Western Australian Parole Board consider him to be of minimal or low risk of reoffending, if released into the community. The Tribunal accepts and prefers the applicant's evidence and the independent evidence of third parties in that regard. The Tribunal accepts the genuineness of the applicant's commitment to not reoffend in the sense that he has had no inclination to engage with organised crime, was never violent, other than on the one occasion in 2009, and is now committed to engage in financially responsible behaviour. The Tribunal accepts that there are exceptionally strong protective familial and factors which are present to assist him, not least of which his wife having arranged the finances in such a way, that even without an income from the applicant, the family can service the mortgage and remain in the family home.
9. Balancing these factors overall the Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs against revocation of the decision to cancel the applicant's visa, but only moderately so.

1. The applicant has not committed a family violence offence. This factor is neutral.

The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia - 8.3

1. In accordance with 8.3(1) of the Direction, the Tribunal has considered any impact of the decision on the applicant's immediate family members in Australia, where those family members are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents, or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely.
2. As consideration is being given to whether to cancel a visa or to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a visa, the Tribunal is obliged to also consider the strength, nature and duration of any other ties that the applicant has to the community. In doing so, the Tribunal must consider:

a) how long the non-citizen has resided in Australia including whether the non-citizen arrived as a young child > > 1. noting that less weight should be given where the non-citizen began offending soon after arriving in Australia; > 2. and more weight should be given to time the non-citizen has spent contributing positively to the Australian community;

(b) the strength, nature and duration of any family or social links with Australian Citizens, Australian permanent residents and or people who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia.

1. The applicant is a 41 year old citizen of New Zealand and was born in Auckland in 1984. In 1995 the applicant's family arrived in Sydney when the applicant was 12 years of age. He has left Australia only on two occasions in 2006 and 2010. The applicant attended Wiley Park Primary School, Belmore Boys High Schools and Chifley College where he graduated with his Higher School Certificate in 2002. Between 2002 and 2004 the applicant worked as a railway labourer. The applicant commenced his role as a Track Maintainer in 2004 and continued in that role until 2012. He commenced Fly In Fly Out (FIFO) work in about 2005. In 2012 the applicant commenced in his role as a track machine operator and he continued in this role until 2023 when he was incarcerated.
2. The applicant married his first wife in 2003 and the couple had two children, a daughter K, and a son J. Tragically J passed away from Leukaemia in 2013 and it is the applicant's evidence that in the event of his removal, his inability to visit the grave site places a strong emotional burden on him.
3. The applicant has contributed positively to the Australian community, through his employment as a track machine operator and his involvement in the community particularly through his car club and more recently through his involvement in the local church. The applicant has tendered evidence by his employer who owns a concreting business and who would be willing to employ the applicant immediately as a labourer.
4. The applicant's wife gave compelling evidence of the applicant's sustained efforts to be a good husband and father and that despite a temporary separation they have reunited and remain a family. The applicant's wife deposes that she now has a full time position in aged care and is currently the sole breadwinner for the family. The applicant, if released will return to the family home, commence his role as a labourer and hopes to regain employment as a track worker. His wife gave evidence that the applicant's removal from Australia would place considerable financial and emotional pressure on her and the family.
5. The applicant's youngest son R is seven years old. In July 2025, R was diagnosed with a medical condition which has a significant impact on his overall development. Before his incarceration the applicant paid for R to see a private speech therapist after concerns had been raised about his language development, however the applicants' wife was unable to continue paying for these sessions once he was incarcerated and would be unable to afford the treatment without additional income support from the applicant.
6. The applicant's eldest daughter K, has also provided a statement declaring that the effect of the removal of the applicant from Australia would be devastating on her and the remainder of the large family:

My father is close to every single one of his family members. His true character and > > nature are very family orientated, he loves his parents, sibling and all of his cousins, > > nieces and nephews. He has always been the 'fun' uncle, the one everyone can talk > > to. I know he will more than likely be the best role model for his family for how he > > changed his life around after this one mistake. The impact of my father Christopher > > not being able to reside in Australia would be completely devastating but more to > > my brother [R] and I as his children. But I mostly feel for my little brother [R]...[18]

7. The applicant's parents provided statements and both depose that they would be negatively affected if the applicant were to be removed to New Zealand. The applicant's mother has suffered a stroke, and is dependent upon the applicant and his wife providing her with accommodation in the marital home. She suffers from a series of health complaints and has other significant health problems, including post stroke paralysis, mobility issues, heart issues and diabetes. The applicant deposes that he helps his mother emotionally, practically and financially, which included taking her to medical appointments, buying her medications and a wheelchair, and that without him contributing to the family's income, his family would not have the financial capacity to make these kinds of necessary purchases.[19]
8. On the basis of all of the evidence, the Tribunal finds that a decision adverse to the applicant would have a devastating effect on the applicant's family.
9. In summary, the Tribunal concludes that if the applicant were removed from Australia his family would be emotionally and financially negatively affected, none more so than his seven year old son who shows signs of developmental delay. About 40 family and friends provided statements that they declare their close relationship to the applicant, the Tribunal concludes extended family and friends would be adversely affected if he were removed from Australia.
10. There is no evidence to support a contention that his wife, or any member of his immediate family, would relocate to New Zealand. The evidence establishes that his wife would have to think about the consequences for her son before deciding whether or not to relocate to New Zealand, and considering the current diagnosis of delayed speech she is not convinced it would be in her son's best interest to relocate. The Tribunal concludes that the impact on the applicant's immediate family would be devastating as he is required to contribute to the household earnings upon release and as he remains a positive influence in his family, and particularly his son's life. Emotionally and financially his family would undoubtedly suffer if the applicant were to be removed from Australia.
11. The Tribunal was referred to evidence directly concerning the applicant's link to his community, his Low Rider Car Community and the local church. Noting the length of time the applicant has spent in Australia, the history of employment and his involvement in the wider community in Sydney and particularly in Perth, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has developed friendships and connections in Australia, other than those with his immediate family. The Tribunal concludes from this that the applicant has a relationship with his extended family members, former and current employers and members of the congregation, who would be adversely affected if he were to be removed from Australia.
12. The Tribunal has considered the strength, nature and duration of other ties the applicant has to the Australian community. In doing so, the Tribunal has placed weight on the fact that the applicant arrived as a 12-year-old and has spent almost thirty years in Australia. Whilst the applicant hast not spent all his formative years in Australia, the Tribunal accepts that he arrived in this country at a relatively young age and has only travelled outside Australia twice since his arrival. The Tribunal has also taken into account that the applicant had committed no serious offences before 2009, nor between 2009 and the index offending in 2022.
13. The applicant has been in continuous employment with the railways from 2002 to 2023 in various roles set out above and the Tribunal finds that through his paid work and his involvement with the community and his church, the applicant has made some positive contribution to the Australian community.
14. Overall, given the adverse effect the removal of the applicant would have on his immediate family in particular, the Tribunal considers that this consideration weighs strongly in favour of revoking the cancellation decision.

The best interests of minor children in Australia - 8.4

1. In accordance with 8.4(1) of the Direction, the Tribunal has considered whether the cancellation of the applicant's visa is in the best interests of the applicant's minor son who is currently 7 years of age. The interests of other minor children have been considered separately.
2. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has lived with his wife and child for the entirety of their marriage but that he intermittently removed himself from the marital home between 2019 and 2022. The applicant was a FIFO worker at the time, and as the couple experienced increased financial pressure, the couple spent time apart. The Tribunal accepts, however, that the applicant, his wife and his son continue to have a strong familial bond and that in the event of his release they intend to live together as a family.
3. The applicant's wife deposes

I wanted more for myself, and my son and I made him feel responsible for everything. I placed the burden solely on him, he had to bear the brunt of it all himself and I feel that this is what led him to make the mistake that is costing him everything now. Leaving Chris is the biggest regret of my life because I truly believe that if I hadn't left, we would have found a way to get through it all together and we would not be in the positions we are in today.

4. During cross examination the applicant's wife, when asked about the effect the applicant's removal would have on her minor son, stated:

[R], our son is only 5 years old, and he needs his dad just as much as he needs the rest of our family and support system. Taking Chris from [R] permanently or taking [R] away from Australia will cause so much damage to [R] emotionally, mentally, and spiritually.[20]

5. R began seeing an Occupational Therapist in mid-November 2025. If the applicant is not released back into the community, the wife deposes that she will not be in a financial position to support R's ongoing therapeutic treatments such as speech pathology and it is therefore in best interests of R that the visa cancellation be revoked.
6. The applicant deposes that he represents a father figure to his niece C who resides with her mother in the applicant's home, and that a non-revocation would adversely affect his niece. The Tribunal has considered other minor children who would be adversely impacted if the applicant were to be removed to New Zealand:

a. BA , aged nine; > > b. AT, aged 14; > > C. CT aged nine; > > d. LU , aged seven; > > e. CTC, aged five; > > f. EB , aged six; > > g. NF , aged 12; > > h. HR , aged 16; > > I. HO aged 14; and > > j. BR , aged 13.

7. In respect of those children, whilst the Tribunal has considered the applicant's evidence in respect of each at pages 86 to 88 of the hearing bundle, the Tribunal finds that revocation would be in the best interest of each. However the Tribunal finds that each child is cared for by his or her own parents and there is no reason why the applicant cannot maintain a relationship with each by electronic means, should he be removed. Particularly in light of the fact that he has been absent from their lives for a period for two years and as some reside interstate, he is not critically involved in their upbringing.
8. There is no evidence to suggest that the applicant's prior conduct had a negative impact at on his young son, although the Tribunal accepts that any likely future violent conduct would have a negative impact on R but finds that given the extremely low risk rating of recidivism there is almost no likelihood that the applicant's child will be negatively affected in future. There is no evidence that minor children have been, or are at risk of being, subjected or exposed to family violence perpetrated by the applicant in the past, or that minor children have otherwise been abused or neglected by the applicant. There is no evidence that the minor children concerned have suffered or experienced any physical or emotional trauma arising from the applicant's conduct (8.4(4)(h)).
9. The respondent accepts this primary consideration weighs against the cancellation of the visa but contends that it does not outweigh the other primary considerations 1 and 5.

The Tribunals conclusion in respect of interests of minor children

1. Having accepted that the absence of the applicant from the family home for two years has caused some negative emotional impact on the applicant's minor son, this is likely to be exacerbated if the applicant were to be deported to New Zealand. Considering R's developmental delay and the evidence of the applicant's wife that R requires the applicant's emotional and financial support, the Tribunal has considered that this consideration weighs very strongly in favour of revocation.

1. In relation to this consideration, 8.5(1) of the Direction states:

The Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they may do so, the Australian community, as a norm, expects the Government to not allow such a non-citizen to remain in Australia.

2. The applicant has failed to obey Australian laws. He would therefore be expected to be removed from the community, as his offending is considered very serious.
3. In RCLN v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs[21], at [31] Horan J stated:

The assessment of community expectations is therefore not a matter of evidence, and does not turn on the personal circumstances of the individual non-citizen: compare, in relation to an earlier iteration of the Ministerial direction: FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs (2019) 272 FCR 454 at [66] -[67] , [74] -[75] (Charlesworth J), [91]-[93], [103]-[104] (Stewart J); see also CKL21 v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] FCAFC 70; (2022) 293 FCR 634 at [29] -[30] (Moshinsky, O'Bryan and Cheeseman JJ). The "degrees of tolerance" referred to elsewhere in the Direction "are matters that fall for consideration by the decision-maker in the ultimate exercise of his or her discretion" (or, in the present context, the determination whether there is another reason to revoke the original cancellation decision), and "in determining whether it is appropriate to give more or less weight to a deemed community expectation of visa refusal that might otherwise arise simply because of the nature of the non-citizen's character concerns or offences": FYBR at [77] (Charlesworth J). In other words, the decision-maker can take into account the personal circumstances of the individual non-citizen in so far as they are relevant to another primary consideration or one of the other considerations, and adjust the relative weight to be given to each of the primary and other considerations accordingly.

4. The Tribunal has considered the principle expressed in 5.2(6) of the Direction; that is, that the Australian community may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age. The applicant is now 41 years of age and has lived in Australia since he was 12 years of age. He has therefore lived in Australia for most of his life and some level of tolerance may be afforded to him by reason of the 30 years he has spent in the community. He was a child when he arrived in this country, and can be considered to have lived here from a very young age.
5. Given, however, the seriousness of the offending, the Tribunal finds that the Australian community expects that the Australian government should cancel the applicant's visa. The applicant's offending involved violent conduct, and involvement with organised crime which as is acknowledged by the applicant causes great harm to the community. It falls within the type of conduct which Direction 110 indicates the Australian community expects a visa should be cancelled for.
6. The expectations of the Australian community therefore weigh heavily against revocation.

1. In deciding whether to exercise the discretion to cancel the applicant's visa, the Tribunal must also take into account the other considerations listed in Direction 110 where relevant.

1. As noted above, the applicant is a citizen of New Zealand.
2. Paragraphs 9.1 of the Direction states that decision makers should be mindful that unlawful non-citizens are, in accordance with section 198 of the Act, liable to be removed from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable, and in the meantime, detention under section 189, noting also that section 197C(1) of the Act provides that for the purposes of section 198, it is irrelevant if Australia has non refoulement obligations in respect of an unlawful non-citizen.
3. Should the visa be cancelled, the applicant would be prohibited from applying for other visas by operation of s 501E of the Act. The applicant's removal and future exclusion from Australia would be the legal consequence of a decision to cancel the visa which flows from the intended operation of the Act. Having regard to Singh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs[22] the Tribunal finds this consideration weighs at least to some extent in favour of revoking the cancellation of the visa.[23]

1. The Tribunal must consider any impediments the applicant may face if removed from Australia to New Zealand in establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards, taking into account his age and health, whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers, and any social, medical and/or economic support available to him.
2. The respondent acknowledges that the applicant is 41 years of age and has lived in Australia for 30 years since he was 12 years of age.
3. The applicant has not lived in or visited New Zealand since he visited in 2016. Nor has he worked in that country, and he no longer has any social or familial network. In these circumstances, the Tribunal concludes that the applicant will have difficulty establishing himself in New Zealand. This is so even though the applicant would not face any language or cultural barriers in that country because of the similarities between Australia and New Zealand.
4. The Tribunal finds that the applicant's criminal record, and his lack of employment history in New Zealand will make it difficult for him to find a job. Furthermore, the Tribunal accepts that there is currently no definitive evidence that would support a finding that the applicant's wife would relocate to New Zealand as she considers her son's medical interests paramount.
5. However, accepting the respondent's submissions, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant would be entitled to the same services available to other New Zealand nationals, and that he would be entitled to health care and income support.
6. While the applicant will face significant impediments if he is removed to New Zealand and that he is likely to have difficulty establishing himself in New Zealand after living in Australia since he was 12 years old, consider that the impediments the applicant will face will be somewhat increased by the fact that he no longer has any ties to that country.
7. In her oral evidence his wife, confirmed that she has not turned her mind to whether or not she and her son should relocate to New Zealand. She held concerns for the disruptive nature such a relocation may have on her son, who has a medical condition and she worried whether treatment, now available in Perth, would be available in New Zealand. She had at the time of the hearing formed no intent to relocate.
8. On balance the Tribunal concludes that this consideration weighs strongly in favour of revocation of the cancellation of the applicant's visa, because there is currently no evidence to support a finding that his wife and son will relocate.
9. The Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs strongly in favour of revocation.

1. In relation to this consideration, the Tribunal must consider any impact on Australian business interests if the applicant is not allowed to remain in Australia. It is noted that an employment link would generally only be given weight where the decision would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project, or delivery of an important service in Australia.
2. The applicant has received a job offer in Australia from his friend, who owns a concreting business. There is some evidence that despite his criminal record he may gain employment as a track machine operator. However, there is no evidence that another person could not be found to fill either of those roles or that a business will fail if the applicant is not employed. In these circumstances, there is no evidence that a failure to revoke the decision to cancel the applicant's visa would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project, or delivery of an important service in Australia.
3. The Tribunal gives this consideration neutral weight.

1. The Tribunal has considered the applicant's circumstances in relation to the various considerations set out in the Direction. It must now carry out the evaluative exercise of weighing up the factors to determine whether to exercise the discretion under s 501(1) of the Act to cancel the applicant's visa. As noted by the Full Court of the Federal Court in CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs[24]:

The balancing process is directed to determining whether there is "another reason" why the visa cancellation should be revoked. It requires an identification of the matters that may constitute "another reason" and bringing to bear the considerations that the Direction requires the Tribunal to take into account where relevant in determining whether or not the Tribunal is satisfied that there is another reason (or reasons) to revoke the visa cancellation. Some of the considerations set out in the Direction, where relevant, may weigh in favour of revocation, and so may constitute "another reason" capable of supporting the state of satisfaction required in order for revocation under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) to occur. But whether they do qualify as a reason of that kind will need to be assessed in the context of different considerations set out in the Direction which may weigh against revocation, where relevant. That is why it is appropriate to describe it as a process of weighing and balancing. But to go beyond that to treat the Direction as mandating some sort of calculation of the net weight to be given to the considerations on each side is to lose sight of the ultimately evaluative nature of the statutory task.

2. The Tribunal made the following findings concerning the relevant primary considerations in the Direction, other considerations being neutral:

(a) The protection of the Australian community against criminal and other serious conduct weighs against revocation of the decision to cancel the applicant's visa but only moderately so. > > (b) The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia weighs strongly in favour of revoking the cancellation decision. > > (c) The interest of minor children weighs very strongly in favour of revocation. > > (d) The expectations of the Australian community weigh heavily against revocation.

3. The Tribunal made the following findings about the only relevant other considerations in the Direction:

(e) The legal consequences of the decision weigh at least to some extent in favour of revoking the cancellation of the visa. > > (f) In respect of the impediments if removed, this consideration weighs strongly in favour of revocation.

4. This is a finely balanced case. The Tribunal concludes that the primary consideration of the protection of the Australian community, which weighs moderately against revocation and the expectations of the Australian community, which weigh strongly against revocation, do not outweigh the considerations that weigh strongly and very strongly in favour of revoking the decision to cancel the applicant's visa, namely the strength, nature and duration of the applicant's ties to Australia and the best interests of minor children. The Tribunal has also weighed the legal consequences of the decision and the extent of the impediments the applicant may face if removed from Australia which weigh to some extent and strongly in favour of revoking the cancellation of the visa.
5. The Tribunal is satisfied that the conclusion in this regard accords with the weight of the evidence and the principles set out in 5.2 of the Direction. In relation to this, 5.2(2) expressly states that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government, and the principles otherwise emphasise the interests of the community rather than those of the individual. In this case, the two primary factors weigh moderately and heavily against the applicant, and the other primary considerations weigh strongly and very strongly in favour of the applicant.
6. The applicant has resided in Australia since he was 12 years of age, or for most of his life. His offending was serious but the evidence supports a finding that that he is at minimal or low risk of reoffending. He had only one incident of violent offending 16 years ago that has not been repeated. He has not offended since the index offending and has given no indication that, even if financial pressures returned, that he would turn to money laundering. The evidence of the applicant's pre-sentence report, the sentencing remarks and the report of the Western Australian Parole Board all indicate that he is at low or even minimal risk of reoffending. His immediate family members are committed to him and his wife and children are demonstrably reliant on him, particularly his seven year old son. The applicant's ties to the community are evidenced by the 40 or so character references provided by his extended family and many friends. He has secure employment on the event of his release and prospects of re-entering a highly paid workforce of track machine operators, despite his criminal record. The best interests of minor children are served by the applicant remaining in Australia and this primary consideration weighs very strongly against cancelling the visa. Having regard to the impact the removal of the applicant would have on him and the lack of familial and social support he would receive in New Zealand, the impediments he would face in that country are also afforded strong weight. On balance and having weighed the considerations the Tribunal finds that the correct and preferable decision is to revoke the decision to cancel the visa.
7. For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal sets aside the reviewable decision of a delegate of the respondent to cancel the applicant's visa and in substitution decides that the cancellation of the applicant's visa is revoked.

Ms A Graziotti, Estrin Saul Migration Specialists

[2] [2022] FCAFC 19.

[3] [2018] FCA 594 at [23].

[11] Page 15 of the summonsed material, NSW Police, produced on the second day of the hearing.

[14] Applicant's statements pp. 72, 286, 783.

[17] Statement of support 18 November 2025.

[21] [2024] FCA 876.

[22] [2024] FCA 1273 at [39]- [43].

[24] CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 138.